ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
BODY-Q Normative Scores: Psychometric Validation of the BODY-Q in the General Population in Europe and North America.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Normative data for the BODY-Q module in an Australian population and comparison with North American and European norms.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- A five-Year BODY-Q Assessment of Six Health-Related Quality of Life Scales After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Versus Sleeve Gastrectomy.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Combining Abdominoplasty and Breast Procedures Under Tumescent Local and Spinal Anesthesia: A Retrospective Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- A Five-year Prospective Study on Weight Loss and Six BODY-Q Health-related Quality of Life Scales After Metabolic Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Liposuction Followed by Helium Plasma Radiofrequency Versus Liposuction Control: A Retrospective Study Evaluating Patient Satisfaction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Traditional Elliptic Excision and Dermoglandular Posteroinferior Flap Technique for Grade III Gynecomastia.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Defining patient-reported outcomes in diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease for clinical practice guidelines - perspectives of the taskforce of the Guideline Workshop.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Article
- Improving the Impact of BODY-Q Scores Through Minimal Important Differences in Body Contouring Surgery: An International Prospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: BODY-Q is a rigorously developed patient-reported outcome measure designed to measure outcomes of weight loss and body contouring patients. To allow interpretation and comparison of BODY-Q scores across studies, normative BODY-Q values were generated from the general population. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of BODY-Q in the normative population. Methods: Data were collected using two crowdsourcing platforms (Prolific and Amazon Mechanical Turk) in 12 European and North American countries. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) was used to examine reliability and validity of BODY-Q scales. Results: RMT analysis supported the psychometric properties of BODY-Q in the normative sample with ordered thresholds in all items and nonsignificant chi-square values for 167 of 176 items. Reliability was high with person separation index of greater than or equal to 0.70 in 20 of 22 scales and Cronbach alpha values of greater than or equal to 0.90 in 17 of 22 scales. Mean scale scores measuring appearance, health-related quality of life, and eating-related concerns scales varied as predicted across subgroups with higher scores reported by participants who were more satisfied with their weight. Analysis to explore differential item functioning by sample (normative versus field-test) flagged some potential issues, but subsequent comparison of adjusted and unadjusted person estimates provided evidence that the scoring algorithm worked equivalently for the normative sample as in the field-test samples. Conclusions: The BODY-Q scales showed acceptable reliability and validity in the normative sample. The normative values can be used as reference in research and clinical practice in combination with local estimates for parallel analysis and comparison.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.